Cited by 130Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors StudyNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchCell death mechanisms and regulation

Mice Homozygous for the L250T Mutation in the α7 Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Show Increased Neuronal Apoptosis and Die Within 1 Day of Birth

Open access
Orr‐Urtreger, Avi, Broide, Ron S., Kasten, Michael R., Dang, Hong, Dani, John A., Beaudet, Arthur L., Patrick, James W.·2000·Journal of Neurochemistry

Abstract

Abstract: The α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) has been implicated in modulating neurotransmitter release and may play a role in the regulation of neuronal growth and differentiation. A threonine for leucine 247 substitution in the channel domain of the chick α7 nAChR increases agonist affinity and decreases the rate of desensitization, creating a “gain of function” model for this receptor. We have generated mice that express the analogous mutation (L250T) in the α7 nAChR using the techniques of homologous recombination and here report their characteristics. Mice heterozygous (+/T) for the L250T mutation are viable, fertile, and anatomically normal compared with wild‐type littermates. In contrast, homozygous (T/T) L250T mice die within 2‐24 h of birth. Brains of T/T mouse pups exhibit a marked reduction in α7 nAChR protein levels and show extensive apoptotic cell death throughout the somatosensory cortex. Furthermore, α7 L250T nAChRs are functionally expressed on neurons within the brains of T/T neonatal mice and have properties that are consistent with those observed for the rat α7 L250T and the chick α7 L247T mutant nAChRs expressed in oocytes. These findings indicate that neurons in the developing brain expressing only α7 L250T mutant nAChRs are susceptible to abnormal apoptosis, possibly due to increased Ca 2+ influx.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1471-4159.2000.0742154.x

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Orr‐Urtreger, A., Broide, R. S., Kasten, M. R., Dang, H., Dani, J. A., Beaudet, A. L., & Patrick, J. W.
Affiliations
Baylor College of Medicine (US)
Venue
Journal of Neurochemistry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-05
Volume
74
Issue
5
Pages
2154-2166
ISSN
  • 0022-3042 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-4159
OpenAlex
W2030551857
Cited by
129
References
65
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
5.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neurochemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA 04077, DA09411, R01DA009411)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS 21229)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Cell death mechanisms and regulation
Keywords
alpha7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, gain-of-function mutations, neuronal apoptosis, neonatal lethality, somatosensory cortex, receptor desensitization, calcium influx, brain development, mouse model
MeSH terms
Animals, Animals, Newborn, Death, Electric Conductivity, Heterozygote, Homozygote, Mutation, Nervous System, Neurons, Oocytes, Receptors, Nicotinic, Somatosensory Cortex, Xenopus laevis, Apoptosis, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review